This article seems to gloss over the fact that wages really haven’t risen with inflation. There may be more job openings than unemployed people, but do those jobs pay a livable wage?
If consumers are being forced into relative poverty because expenses are rising faster than incomes are, that is the definition of a bad economy. Whoever wrote this headline is bought and paid for.
This is part of the issue. My local grocery store pays $15/hour and mostly hires part time to avoid benefits.
1 bedroom apartments start at $1,200/mo. Most places require rent to be no more than about 33% of income. Don’t even get me started on gas/car, insurance, utilities, etc.
There is a huge disconnect.
The economy is NOT in good shape. It is according to metrics they choose to measure, but jobs that pay a living wage are very hard to come by.
To be fair, it hasn’t been good by THAT standard in decades probably. It just feels worse right now because there was a rise in wages for a bit there that was totally lost to inflation.
The vast majority of first-worlders complaining about not having enough money already have more than people whose needs are not being met.
The problem is that they think they should get more before others who have less. It’s an issue that exists all the way to the top, which is why it’s hypocritical to call out billionaires while not looking at our own contributions to the problem.
Yeah, those with food insecurity should get more before those without it.
The problem is, some people conflate “I can’t afford to eat out everyday” with “needing more money.” No. Just because you have to cook your own meals doesn’t mean your needs aren’t being met.
You can buy a pound of bologna for $1.50 at Walmart, for example. But the people I’m referring to are “too good” for that. They believe they should get more before others who have less. Are you one of them?
It’s normalized by CPI, so a flat line would be no wage growth.
Depends on the the sector, obviously. I’m guessing service sector wages have not kept up with inflation, since it seems like every place is understaffed (they’re not offering enough to attract workers). I also don’t think it accounts for part-time and gig worker wages.
This article seems to gloss over the fact that wages really haven’t risen with inflation. There may be more job openings than unemployed people, but do those jobs pay a livable wage?
If consumers are being forced into relative poverty because expenses are rising faster than incomes are, that is the definition of a bad economy. Whoever wrote this headline is bought and paid for.
Exactly. Just having job in no way guarantees someone also has a home and food to eat … which is some serious Black Mirror shit.
If you work 40 hours you shouldn’t need a 2nd job to survive. With the wealth America has you shouldn’t have to work more than 30
This is part of the issue. My local grocery store pays $15/hour and mostly hires part time to avoid benefits.
1 bedroom apartments start at $1,200/mo. Most places require rent to be no more than about 33% of income. Don’t even get me started on gas/car, insurance, utilities, etc.
There is a huge disconnect.
The economy is NOT in good shape. It is according to metrics they choose to measure, but jobs that pay a living wage are very hard to come by.
To be fair, it hasn’t been good by THAT standard in decades probably. It just feels worse right now because there was a rise in wages for a bit there that was totally lost to inflation.
When will we start talking about thriving wages?
when out of control greed is controlled… probably never?
When people stop conflating needs with wants.
Why is the greed of the owner class often conveniently dropped or forgotten in such discussions then? You think billionaires need their billions?
No.
The vast majority of first-worlders complaining about not having enough money already have more than people whose needs are not being met.
The problem is that they think they should get more before others who have less. It’s an issue that exists all the way to the top, which is why it’s hypocritical to call out billionaires while not looking at our own contributions to the problem.
In the end, the entire world is in poverty while 2000 people are rich beyond their wildest dreams.
Its awfully dismissive to pull the “starving kids in China” card
Uhh, no. My entire point was people conflating needs with wants and you’re doing just that.
“Living in poverty compared to billionaires” is not the same as starving.
Food security is more than just starvation fam
Yeah, those with food insecurity should get more before those without it.
The problem is, some people conflate “I can’t afford to eat out everyday” with “needing more money.” No. Just because you have to cook your own meals doesn’t mean your needs aren’t being met.
You can buy a pound of bologna for $1.50 at Walmart, for example. But the people I’m referring to are “too good” for that. They believe they should get more before others who have less. Are you one of them?
I think wages have kept up with inflation, if I’m reading this chart correctly: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q
It’s normalized by CPI, so a flat line would be no wage growth.
Depends on the the sector, obviously. I’m guessing service sector wages have not kept up with inflation, since it seems like every place is understaffed (they’re not offering enough to attract workers). I also don’t think it accounts for part-time and gig worker wages.
Wage growth outpaced inflation in 2023.
How about the previous 10 yr stats?